babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » They just can't stop lying

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: They just can't stop lying
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 June 2003 11:25 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
KIRKUK, Iraq -- The commander of a brigade that U.S. Central Command said captured 74 suspected al-Qaida sympathizers said Monday that he had no knowledge of any such arrests.

"This is the first I've heard of this," said Col. William Mayville, commander of the 173rd Airborne Brigade.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 17 June 2003 11:35 AM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now Wingy, let's not be so quick to rush to judgement. Maybe they weren't deliberatley lying: perhaps they're just dreadfully incompetent.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
drgoodword
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3214

posted 17 June 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for drgoodword   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by black_dog:
Now Wingy, let's not be so quick to rush to judgement. Maybe they weren't deliberatley lying: perhaps they're just dreadfully incompetent.

Getting harder and harder to make that distinction...speaking of which...is it my imagination, or have babble's resident right-wingers and neocons been a little quiet over the past couple of days? Is the complete lack of WMD and America's criminally incompetent management of Iraq too much even for them?

One can only hope.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 17 June 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by drgoodword:

Getting harder and harder to make that distinction...speaking of which...is it my imagination, or have babble's resident right-wingers and neocons been a little quiet over the past couple of days? Is the complete lack of WMD and America's criminally incompetent management of Iraq too much even for them?

One can only hope.


I kinda miss them, actually. If nothing else, they can be quite amusing in their dogmatic adherence to every word that eminates from Ari Fleicher's blowhole.

However, I doubt they're being put off by the situation in Iraq. After all, this is the same lot that crowed about the great success that the U.S. has had in Afghanistan, that the sky was indeed pink and that piggies everywhere were taking flight.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 17 June 2003 01:43 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
As far as strategy goes, gloating is hardly the most brilliant polemical route. Ask your silent buddies on this forum about that.

Look, guys, we're starting to paint ourselves into a corner here. The argument against going into Iraq was not that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, it was that, if he still had some, they didn't pose a credible and immediate threat. At this still early juncture, by taking the position that the whole issue of Iraqi WMDs was a fabrication, if even ONE van with trace amounts of WMD is discovered, it not only undermines the all-or-nothing position, it shoots it out of the water.

Better off saying simply that the U.S., Britain and Australia greatly exaggerated the threat, to the point of misleading us into a war. (Which, it seems clear, they did.) Internationally, it means that the Bush League will have an even more difficult time trying to strongarm weaker allies into supporting unsupportable policies.

If no WMDs ever turn up -- that's a huge bonus. But it is still a little early in the game. And no matter what you think of the Bush or Blair admins, I can't believe they would open themselves up to this type of backlash intentionally; they must have really believed that they'd find something. (Especially the idiot Blair.) It is delicious that they didn't.

But I can just see the Krauthammers of this world launching into an I-told-you-so tirade if even trace amounts are dicovered, putting the left on the defensive, yet again.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 17 June 2003 01:55 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Look, guys, we're starting to paint ourselves into a corner here. The argument against going into Iraq was not that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, it was that, if he still had some, they didn't pose a credible and immediate threat. At this still early juncture, by taking the position that the whole issue of Iraqi WMDs was a fabrication, if even ONE van with trace amounts of WMD is discovered, it not only undermines the all-or-nothing position, it shoots it out of the water.

Even if one van woith trace amounts of WMD is found, they would still have to prove it represented a clear and present danger to the U.S., which was the rationale behind the war and why they couldn't wait for further inspections. Regardless, barring the sudden discovery of a few thousand tonnes of anthrax and the missles needed to deliver it, the argument against the war stands.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 17 June 2003 02:14 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I agree 100%, Black Dog. But we should reiterate that original argument.

Because the increasingly desperate Bush position is that if even one bit of anthrax is found, that would justify their war. And to avoid a sort of collective cognitive dissonance, much of the American public would also happily accept that conclusion.

So it's not that NO weapons have been found. It is, as you've said, that whatever the extent of Saddam's arsenal, it never posed an immediate or credible threat.

I think we're arguing the same thing, basically. I'm just calling on the left to frame their attack on the Bushites in a way that cannot be compromised by any "new developments."

Cheers.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
April Follies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4098

posted 17 June 2003 04:22 PM      Profile for April Follies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I absolutely agree, Maggot. I've noticed the neocons have been very good at using practically every rhetorical trick in the book to razzle-dazzle people away from the central points. The more we can short-circuit this, the better.

Central point: the U.S. went to war on the presumption of a "clear and present danger" presented to the US by Iraq. Current information shows that (a) there was no such danger and (b) the administration perpetrated a deliberate deception in arguing that there was such danger.


From: Help, I'm stuck in the USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca